Tiger to be DQ'd?

[HawkeyeMS]

Just found this...

After completing his final round (and tying for fourth), Woods was asked about the photos.

Reporter: Is there any chance that you were mistaken when you said you were two yards back, because there were photos that looked like you were in the exact same spot?

Woods: No, I saw the photos.

Reporter: What do you think?

Woods: I was behind it.

Reporter: You do?

Woods: Yeah.

Reporter: So, you’re pretty sure that the two yards is actually …

Woods: One, two yards. But it certainly was not as close as the rule says.

From http://www.golfchannel.com/news/golftalkcentral/woods-positive-drop-was-illegal-despite-photos/

 

[garyinderry]

what if he hadnt taken a divot? he could have taken the two yards and no one would be any the wiser!

 

[Colin L]

N
Just seen it on the beeb , 2 yards is aprox 6 feet .. it didnt even look like 2 feet to me , could be just the camera angle tho .. Personaly i dont think the drop was excessivly far behind the origional spot for a drop .. just my opinion tho

The ball should strike the ground within about 20cm of the spot.

 

[HawkeyeMS]

what if he hadnt taken a divot? he could have taken the two yards and no one would be any the wiser!

What if he hadn't said anything afterwards, or it was someone like Tim Clark who'd not been seen on TV all day? Again, no-one would be any the wiser.

 

[duncan mackie]

What if he hadn't said anything afterwards, or it was someone like Tim Clark who'd not been seen on TV all day? Again, no-one would be any the wiser.

the problem with what if's is that we will never know....

TW might have realised the issue the next morning and withdrawn - note the irony here; he would have withdrawn without knowing the committee had already ruled!

(note also that you can't DQ yourself for those that have commentet to that effect - you just withdraw in this instance.)

 

[gmc40]

Well, as no one had noticed it and player hadn't realised it, absolutely nothing would have happened. That's why the authorities brought in the 'Trial by Television' rule - as the coverage wasn't the same for everyone, highlighting the ones that are seen is deemed 'unfair'.

Am I confused? Or are you saying that it only came to light because the viewer phoned in?

33/7 4.5 did not apply in this case and if the viewer had not of called Woods would have been disqualified. The viewer actually kept him in the comp.

 

[duncan mackie]

Am I confused? Or are you saying that it only came to light because the viewer phoned in?

33/7 4.5 did not apply in this case and if the viewer had not of called Woods would have been disqualified. The viewer actually kept him in the comp.

the combination of the timing of the viewers call and the committee's reaction

if the viewer in the Padraig Harrington incident had called in in a similar manner (before he'd signed) he would also have had a 2 shot penalty rather than DQ (although there are key differences in the incidents)

 

[gmc40]

the combination of the timing of the viewers call and the committee's reaction

if the viewer in the Padraig Harrington incident had called in in a similar manner (before he'd signed) he would also have had a 2 shot penalty rather than DQ (although there are key differences in the incidents)

I know exactly what happened and the applicable rule. I thought (but could be mistaken) that Foxholer is saying 33/7 4.5 was the reason he was not disqualified. Which wasn't the case.

 

[HawkeyeMS]

the problem with what if's is that we will never know....

TW might have realised the issue the next morning and withdrawn - note the irony here; he would have withdrawn without knowing the committee had already ruled!

(note also that you can't DQ yourself for those that have commentet to that effect - you just withdraw in this instance.)

I don't disagree, in fact I made the last point earlier in the thread. Unfortunately, we will never know a lot about this incident.